Direct democracy in some form — through citizen initiatives, popular referendums or both — is an option in 26 states and the District of Columbia. Citizens can petition to place statutes or constitutional amendments on the ballot or ask voters to approve or repeal actions of their legislatures. In most states, they can enact the measure into law with a simple majority vote, and their decision to do so is not subject to the governor’s veto. Direct democracy reflects commitments to popular sovereignty, majority rule and political equality.
In all, 159 statewide ballot measures went before voters last year, with most attention focused on the seven states where voters used direct democracy to amend their constitutions to protect abortion access. Seeing these conflicts over policy play out, along with efforts to diminish the power of the process, should cause us to both commit to protecting direct democracy and seriously consider why so many states embraced it in the first place.
Direct democracy has roots in the nation’s founding and helps illustrate a significant difference between state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions have celebrated popular influence on government in contrast to the U.S. Constitution, which was designed to limit that influence. For example, North Carolina’s 1776 constitution declared that “all political power is vested in and derived from the people only,” while the writers of the U.S. Constitution rejected an amendment with similar language proposed by James Madison. Massachusetts allowed residents to vote directly on whether to ratify a new constitution in 1780, while the U.S. Constitution was adopted by delegates to special ratifying conventions.
Beginning in the late 19th century, state constitutions established initiatives and referendums, partly because legislatures dominated by special interests were unresponsive to the public. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t permit initiatives or referendums.
In recent years, some state legislatures have been busy fighting direct democracy. In an effort to prevent a proposed amendment to Ohio’s Constitution guaranteeing abortion access from succeeding, for example, in 2023 Ohio’s Legislature attempted to change the vote threshold needed to pass amendments from 50 percent to 60 percent. After Ohio voters defeated the voter-threshold measure and approved the abortion-rights amendment, one commentator urged Republican-controlled states to “consider re-valuating the merits of their constitutional amendment process long before they think they will become targets.”
Legislatures hostile to direct democracy also have tried to impose single-subject requirements allowing officials to invalidate initiatives addressing too many issues, require voters to pass initiatives twice or institute onerous signature requirements. Arizona and North Dakota voters rejected these efforts in 2024, but legislatures have succeeded in other instances.
The charitable explanation for politicians challenging direct democracy is that they believe the legislative process is a superior method of enacting or changing law because it allows for reasoned deliberation and compromise by the people’s representatives.
But many legislatures are unrepresentative. Because of rampant gerrymandering and political polarization, legislators must cater to the most ideological members of their party to avoid primary challenges. That frequently involves pursuing broadly unpopular policies. To withstand public backlash, they draw safe districts that have enough co-partisans to allow them to win general elections. Direct democracy undermines this arrangement. Therefore, the only way a passionate minority can maintain the power to impose its policy preferences and moral vision on society is to sabotage direct democracy at every turn.
History provides a warning. Majorities may allow minority rule in the short term, but not forever. For example, 19th-century Rhode Islanders frustrated by property requirements to vote pleaded in vain with government officials to expand suffrage for decades. Instead of accepting failure, they held a constitutional convention without government sanction and raised a militia to implement by force the constitution it produced. Though the Dorr Rebellion failed to achieve military victory, it ultimately pressured authorities to liberalize voting requirements.
Recent political violence — as represented by the assassination attempts on President Trump and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — should lead us to view future Dorr Rebellions as a legitimate concern.
To preserve faith in our political system and reduce the incentive to work outside it, we need to end partisan gerrymandering and ensure that the political process is responsive. A deliberative process that works as intended will reduce the need for citizens to circumvent legislatures. Meanwhile, keeping direct democracy viable will channel the inevitable desire to change laws into productive directions instead of destructive ones.
Marcus Gadson is the author of a forthcoming book about the history of constitutional crises at the state level. As of July 1, he will be an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Follow him on X.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
